Flint 1989.

Methods	Study design: RCT, Zelen design. Duration of study: 1983‐1985.
Participants	Setting: tertiary hospital and community settings, St George's Hospital, London, UK. Inclusion criteria: low risk of complications who booked at the study hospital and were likely to receive all their antenatal care at that hospital. Exclusion criteria: under 5 feet tall, serious medical problems, previous uterine surgery, past obstetric history of > 2 miscarriages/TOP/SB/NND, Rh antibodies. Participants randomised: 503 team‐midwifery, 498 to standard care (shared care).
Interventions	Experimental: team of 4 midwives who provided antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal care in hospital, and postnatal care in the community for women in predefined geographic area. Obstetrician seen at 36 and 41 weeks as appropriate. Control: standard antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care provided by assortment of midwives and obstetricians.
Outcomes	Outcomes considered in the review and reported in or extracted from the study: 5‐minute Apgar score below or equal to 7 Admission to special care nursery/NICU Amniotomy Antenatal hospitalisation Augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour Caesarean birth Episiotomy Fetal loss/neonatal death before 24 weeks Fetal loss/neonatal death equal to/after 24 weeks High perceptions of control during labour and childbirth Induction of labour Intact perineum Instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum) Low birthweight (< 2500 g) No intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia Opiate analgesia Fetal loss and neonatal death PPH (as defined by trial authors) Regional analgesia (epidural/spinal) Spontaneous vaginal birth (as defined by trial authors)
Notes	At baseline, more Asian women in control group (18% vs 10%) and more smokers in experimental group (30% vs 22%). Sub‐analysis of case notes found that 98% of experimental group and 20% of standard group had previously met midwife attending labour. Discrepancy in instrumental birth data. Date taken from report and not published paper.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not stated.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	'...randomised into two groups by pinning sealed envelopes on their notes containing either the motto KNOW YOUR MIDWIFE or CONTROL GROUP' (Does not state if envelopes were number consecutively.).
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not stated but unlikely.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not stated but unlikely.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Loss to follow‐up = 15 team care, 19 standard care.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Outcome reporting: all outcomes stated in the methods section were adequately reported in results.
Other bias	Low risk	No other bias identified.